DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member Date of Filing: 07/01/2021
CC/4/2021
C.N. Prabhakaran,
S/o Ramankutty Nair,
13/174, Lakshmi Prabha,
Cadet Avenue, Chittur Post Road,
(By Adv. M. Rajesh) - Complainant
Vs
1. The Chief Post Master General,
Kerala circle, PMG Junction,
Near Planetaurium, Thiruvananthapuram,
Kerala – 695 033.
2. The Superintendent of Post Office,
Head Post Office, Sulthanpet, Palakkad.
3. The Post Master,
Chittur Post Office, Palakkad. - Opposite Parties
(O.P.s through Authorised Representative)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- This complaint was taken up for preliminary hearing on the question of maintainability after going through the pleadings. The pleadings, on perusal did not inspire confidence of a justiciable cause of action.
- First paragraph of the complaint reads as below:
“The complainant joined a Recurring deposit scheme of the postal authorities from the chittur post office which is been started by the complainant on 22-01-2015. The R.D. is for a period of 60 months and the amount of deposit which the complainant has chosen was Rs. 3000/- (three thousand rupees only) On per month basis. The tenure of the recurring deposit scheme was 22-01-2020. Without looking into the same the postal agent concerned approached the complainant to close the R.d. Scheme and to get the amount. The complainant without verifying the records and without looking into the tenure and all went to the post office concerned and closed the R.D. scheme on 17.01.2020 after remitting all the 60 monthly installments. Thereafter it is revealed that due to the foreclosure of the same before the 5 days prior to the ctual tenire of the R.D. complainant had sustained a loss of Rs. 26,000/- (Twenty six thousand rupees only). This fact is not been revealed to the complainant by anybody. The complainant came across the loss and the period was not over of the R.D. on the immediate next day i.e. on 18-01-2020 itself he preferred a complaint to the post master chittur and after condicting an enquiry on the subject the complaint had been closed without redressing the grievance of the complaint which is a clear deficiency on the part of the opposite parties to the complainant. It is a clear exploitation of the complainant herein.”(sic)
3. The factual picture that arises is that the complainant along with his agent went to the office of the 3rd opposite party on his own volition. The visit happened to be 5 days prior to the date of maturity. On his application, and as the application was well within the statutory limits, the 3rd opposite party permitted closure of the account based on the terms and conditions of the Deposit.
4. The complainant goes on further down the pleading that he had no necessity to close the account on that date. Nobody had intimated him about the closing date, impact of premature closing etc.
5. Crux of the issue hangs around the question, whether there was any duty, statutory or otherwise, cast on the opposite party to intimate the complainant regarding the effects of premature closing. There is no pleading to the effect that the complainant had made enquiries before the closing. In fact, the complainant himself admits that he had gone to the office of the 3rd opposite along with his agent. Naturally, in the presence of the agent, who is presumed to be well versed in the Rules and Regulations regarding the conduct of Recurring Deposits, there is no ground whatsoever for the opposite parties to suspect that something is amiss. The opposite parties are not expected to tutor the complainant after dissecting and measuring the needs and necessities of the complainant. Incidentally, non-release of the funds upon receipt of application for closure, would have ipso-facto constituted a deficiency in service.
6. Further, the terms and conditions of the recurring deposit is clearly exhibited at the reverse of the pass book. There was no obscurity what so ever in the transactions between the complainant and the opposite parties.
7. Albeit detrimental to the interest of the complainant, the conduct of the 3rd opposite party was prompt and in accordance with the demand made by the complainant, assisted by his agent. Nothing remotely suggestive of deficiency in service can be attributed to the conduct of the 3rd opposite party.
8. We also feel that this complaint is whimsical, lacks in good-taste and boarder-lines vexatious litigation. But the complaint being the fruit of a person’s desperate attempts to regain the amounts that almost came to his possession, and considering his agony thereof, we are not imposing any cost and compensation upon the complainant, payable to the opposite parties.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances pleaded by the complainant, we are resorting to summary disposal of the complaint by holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, as pleaded in the memorandum of complaint. The complaint is therefore dismissed. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
Pronounced in open court on this the 11th day of January, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the Proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
